The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part 68

breathings are usually written exactly above the letter, or over the middle of a diphthong (fr. 1 i 5, ii 14; fr. 2.1, 10). Sometimes they are moved slightly to the right: fr. 1 ii 5, 8 (br.), and fr. 2.3, 8 (acc.).

Diaeresis a mark indicating that two vowels are pronounced separately (inorganic): fr. 1 ii 2; fr. 2.12. Apostrophe (to the right above the letter, not between letters): fr. 1 ii 1, 8, 14. Punctuation (mesē a mid-point punctuation mark): fr. 1 i 1, 7, ii 6; fr. 2.8, 9. Scriptio plena writing out the final vowel of a word even before a following vowel: fr. 1 ii 2 (but not fr. 1 ii 1, 3, 8, 14; fr. 2.7). ι adscriptum the letter iota written at the end of a word is nowhere required (but see fr. 1 ii 20 n.).

Iotacism: probably fr. 2.5. Correction: fr. 1 ii 3 — no cancellation, just written above (see n.). The correction seems to have been made by the scribe himself: κ and λ are a little thinner and less formal (presumably because they are written smaller), but the ink appears to be the same. Diaereses and mesai must have been written with the text: they are well-spaced, thick blobs. The other signs are thinner: the spacing suggests that they were added later; the ink suggests that this was done by the same hand.

This was a roll carefully written in an ambitious style. It was extensively marked, punctuated, and corrected by the scribe himself. The layout was generous, with ample margins. A beautiful copy — perhaps a luxury edition of a classic? What was its content?

Fr. 1 contains the beginnings of trimeters, fr. 2 the middle of a column of trimeters (or tetrameters?). No certain instances of resolution; correptio Attica shortening of a long syllable before a mute and a liquid in fr. 1 ii 2, but apparently not in fr. 1 ii 7. Metre and language suggest tragedy. If so, the most likely candidate (at this time) is Euripides. The diction supports this (see comm., esp. fr. 1 ii 8 n.). I find nothing to contradict it. If Euripides, which play?

Fr. 1 preserves part of a rhēsis a formal speech in Greek drama. The speaker seems to remain the same throughout, but it does not emerge who s/he is. When the text begins, s/he addresses a group (fr. 1 ii 1 f.), presumably the chorus, about someone else. S/he then addresses this person: first indirectly (fr. 1 ii 3–7; note the 3rd pers. sg. imperatives), then directly (from fr. 1 ii 8; taken up in 12? 14, 15? 16?).

The speaker complains of hubris arrogance/insolence (fr. 1 ii 2). The tone is angry and dismissive (note the series of asyndetic imperatives). The opponent is sent away (fr. 1 ii 4 f., and probably 8) on horseback (1.6). Is he (fr. 1 ii 1 him) the speaker's son (fr. 1 ii 19 e.g. my concern? cf. fr. 1 ii 20), banished from the speaker's house (fr. 1 ii 19 e.g. my hall?)? Is he absent or present during the speech? Has he just left, or is he on the point of leaving, perhaps after an agōn a formal debate/contest? And what is the relevance of the agricultural references in fr. 1 ii 7 f.?

The beginning of the speech is lost: leave him (? fr. 1 ii 1; see n.) can hardly have been its opening words. Its conclusion may survive in fr. 2.1–5. Fr. 2.3 myself would suit the end of the speech (cf. the first-person references at fr. 1 ii 14, 16, 17, 19). Fr. 2.9 is blank: probably because it contained an exclamatio extra metrum (presumably the reaction of a new speaker). When the text resumes, the speaker has changed: 2.8 we... strongly suggests the chorus. In their first line (2.7), they address the previous speaker as their lord and master: despota lord/master. If the speaker of fr. 1 is the same as in fr. 2.1–5, it follows that he is male (2.3, 7), and a figure of authority.

If taken together like this, frr. 1 and 2 (can be made to) cohere closely — enough, in fact, to yield the outline of a scene: the end of a rhēsis, and the reaction of the chorus. This